MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 325, 9 May 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY. (3;!o;-aT. W. Parks.*, Es l, R.M.) ALLEGED LARCENY OF GRAIN. The following is the conclusion of the evidence in the ohaj'ge of stealing grain preferred by James Liddle against Tiiomas Pratt: Matthew Holmes deposed: I had an oat transaction with Pratt about the month of February. They were purchased by Mr. Pratt, but the party that I looked to for payment was James Hassell, through his attorneys. After this we had other transactions. I never had any conversation with Pratt about the existence or non-existence of the firm of Pratt and Co, I looked upon Pratt, as I had always done, as the representatire of James Hassell, senior, in these transactions. Pratt never asked nie to take payment. I applied to Mr. Hassell's attorneys for payment for the oats. I insisted on payment from them. Pratt rented the chapel for the purpose of storing these oats. I always looked to Mr. Hassell as my principal in these affairs. I received payment from Messrs. Liddle and Hassell.

Jas. Hassell, jun., deposed: I remember an application for payment for certain oats in the Wesleyan Chapel being made to me and Mr. Liddle by Mr. Holmes.. A bill was given for the oats on behalf of my father. Mr. Liddle and I had some conversation with Mr. Holmes at the time about the oats. I considered that we, as attorneys, had possession of the oats. Pratt told me about a letter he had received about the dissolution of partnership, and he also told me he had no intention of going on with the business of the mill as long as Liddle was connected with it. I remember going to the old Wesleyan Chapel in company with Mr..Liddle on the 23rd April. I had a conversation with Pratt that day about the oats. I asked him why he had broken into the place and taken them away. He said he wanted to get a settlement, and as soon as that was done he would return them, or the money they realised by selling them. He said he acted under Mr. O'Meagher's advice, and that he had no intention of delivering them until he had got a settlement. He also said that he had nothing to lose but Ll2O, and that if he had a right to them, they would be treated as the other property. He several times told me he intended to sell 'them.' The bats at this time were being taken down to Aitken's store. He told me he was liable for the bill, and that he would sell the oats, and meet the bill when due. I told him that wj, as the attorneys of Mr. Hassell, had paid for the oats. The reason he gave was that Mr. O'Meagher told him he was liable for the bill, and that waa

tbe reason he was taking the oats. I told not liable for the payment of the'- datsphut he continued to take them away. r > :^,\ . t Crpss-eiamined by Mr. O'Meagher:-I ffial'hot say to Piatt, when he showed me tlie letterMrom Liddle about the dissolution of pattnership, that Liddle ahould not have uvritten tfhe letter without my knowledge andicohsent. Liddle did not telTmarJie tod Written the letter to Pritt until after "it had been received. I did not sign the letter as attorney for my father, and was surprised when I saw it. As my father's attorney, I am interested in the firm of Pratt and Co. It is usual for Liddle to take important steps in connection with my father's affairs without consulting me. Pratt was eating bread and cheese when I went into the Chapel. He did not choke me or attempt to hide from me. He did not deny that he was removing the oats, but said he was acting under your (Mr. O'Meagher's) advice. From what he said to me he appeared to think that he was liable for the payment of the oats, and that he intended to sell them and hold the money until the partnership business of Pratt and Co. was settled.

William Aitken deposed : On Sunday, the 22nd April, Pratt came to me to engage my store. He wanted it open at one o'clock on Monday morning, to receive some grain to be brought from the old Wesleyan Chapel. The oats were brought to my store for storage. He told me that the reason for the oats being removed so early was that there was a partnership dispute between Liddle and him, and he" was taking this step in order to bring matters to a head. He told me the oats belonged to Pratt and Co. I did not ask any questions as Pratt said he was acting under Mr. O'Meagher's advice. I turned out at one o'clock on the Monday morning, but tlie first load of grain did not come to my store till about half-past eight o'clock. I think there is about 1,100 bags in my store, which were brought there by Pratt. He did not say how long the oats were to remain there, or what he was going to do with them. I went up to the Chapel at about half-past 2 o'clock that morning, and saw Pratt and two policemen there. Pratt told me that he could not get the drays to bring the oats down then, as it was raining. I did not see the Chapel broken into. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Meagher: There was no concealment about taking the oats to my store, and I did not consider myself a receiver of stolen property, but felt perfectly comfortable. By Mr. Hislop : I felt comfortable until after I had taken in a few loads, when I asked your (Mr. Hislop's) advice in the matter. By Mr. o'Mealier : As the result of t! at advice I took in the whole of the oats. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. O'Meagher said it was almost unnecessary for him to. address his Worship. The evidence of tlie first witness was sufficient to show t e reasons whic-i actuated him in laying the infonnaH-n. The matter was on? of malicious prosecution. The partnership of Pratt and 00. had not baen dissolved, as Mr. James Hassell, jun., had not signed the letter sent to Pratt dissolving the partners dp, while there was hnthin; to show that Liddle had the power t > dissolve the partnership without Having first obtained tie signature of his co-attorney. He quoted authorities to show that if any charge were to be brought against Pratt, it should have been for trespass, and not for laroeny. The evidence showed that the oats had been taken away in open day, and without any attempt at concealment. There was not, therefore, a prima facie case against Pratt. The oats were taken away under a fair claim of right, and on this ground the case must be dismissed. Liddle had no right to set the criminal law in motion, as he might have obtained an injunction from the Supreme Court to prevent Pratt disposing of the oats. This was the most malicious case of prosecution ever brought before Court, and he hoped it would be dismissed. His Worship having reviewed the case, suggested that it should be settled out of Court. Mr. O'Meagher pressed his Worship to say whether a prima facie case had been made out. Mr. Hislop said he would have no objection to an arrangement, or an adjournment for a week in order that an arrangement might be come to. Mr. O'Meagher refused, and pressed the Magistrate to give a decision on the case as it appeared on the information, and according to the evidence brought forward. The Magistrate then said he would tak« ■time to look over and consider the evidence, and give his decision on Thursday morning.